As in Federal laws that are unconstitutional, such as federal drug laws. For example if California wants to legalize marijuana than it should be up to them as a State to decide to do so being there is no Constitutional basis to deny them the ability to do so. You know were making a big hoopla over the Federal Govt getting involved in healthcare as unconstitutional? Lots of people use the argument "where does it say the govt has the right to do so in the Constitution?" yet they scoff when you point out that same argument as it pertains to drugs. Try again.

Federal authority is derived by the Constitution, which itself was created through a compact between the States, not the people. If State power is derived from people within the State, then the compact created by each State is a facsimile of power granted by citizens. The powers granted to the Federal government are vested in the same compact that united each State. Power not granted the Federal government resides in the States or to the people respectively, and this is verifiable as a canonized concept in the Constituion itself and through logic.

A State should not abide a power wielded by the Federal government which is not assigned it, nor should a citizen. But, then again, liberty begins between the ears, and so liberty can only be sustained through fruitful thought and harvested action.

Ron Paul just spoke at my university a few hours ago. I will be voting for him tomorrow. He might not be the perfect candidate with perfect ideas, but I'd take him over Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich any day.

Federal authority is derived by the Constitution, which itself was created through a compact between the States, not the people. If State power is derived from people within the State, then the compact created by each State is a facsimile of power granted by citizens. The powers granted to the Federal government are vested in the same compact that united each State. Power not granted the Federal government resides in the States or to the people respectively, and this is verifiable as a canonized concept in the Constituion itself and through logic.

A State should not abide a power wielded by the Federal government which is not assigned it, nor should a citizen. But, then again, liberty begins between the ears, and so liberty can only be sustained through fruitful thought and harvested action.

Federal authority is derived by the Constitution, which itself was created through a compact between the States, not the people.

Click to expand...

That's why the Constitution starts off, "We the States"? And the DoI contains the immortal words, "deriving it's just powers from the consent of the political subdivisions...it is the right of the states to alter or abolish it..."?

Nope. Exhaustively debated in our founding and not decided as you say. Since that seems to be the foundation of the rest of your post, we need to fix that first.

That's why the Constitution starts off, "We the States"? And the DoI contains the immortal words, "deriving it's just powers from the consent of the political subdivisions...it is the right of the states to alter or abolish it..."?

Nope. Exhaustively debated in our founding and not decided as you say. Since that seems to be the foundation of the rest of your post, we need to fix that first.

Click to expand...

The 2 prescribed methods for Constitutional amendment are dependent on state legislatures, not popular vote. Ratification of the original COTUS was not done by direct vote either.

In addition, when originally drafted, Senators were appointed by state legislatures and not directly elected.

You tell me, you're the constitutional expert.
I'd say from the people.

And I do oppose Obamacare.
The federal government has no business in people's healthcare, retirement or their bedroom.

BUT, mistakes have been made in the past in these areas that today commits the federal government to being responsible for those areas. You can't just quit cold turkey and leave people to fend for themselves.

It's not too late to prevent another mistake by repealing Obamacare now.

You tell me, you're the constitutional expert.
I'd say from the people.

And I do oppose Obamacare.
The federal government has no business in people's healthcare, retirement or their bedroom.

BUT, mistakes have been made in the past in these areas that today commits the federal government to being responsible for those areas. You can't just quit cold turkey and leave people to fend for themselves.

It's not too late to prevent another mistake by repealing Obamacare now.

Click to expand...

Well only one GOP candidate wants the Federal government out of all three healthcare, retirement, and bedroom. Want to guess which one?

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

It's tough when you are forced to sift through the best of the unsatisfactory.

Kind of like digging through a box of gun part rejects finding the best one. It's really not a good situation all the way around. So don't try and over think it. In the end Paul is the best of the unsatisfactory in the purest form. Does he have a chance of being elected? Probably not. Neither does Santorum or Romney. Obama is projected to have $1B in his war chest.

This whole election has been a **** storm and we're caught outside without an umbrella.

You tell me, you're the constitutional expert.
I'd say from the people.

Click to expand...

I'm not a Constitutional expert. I'm just literate.

Theoretically, yes. Technically, from the states. The authority which it is GRANTED is spelled out in the Contract that all states have agreed to.

You don't like strict Constitutional government. At the same time you don't like the government sticking its nose into areas you don't agree with but agree with the government meddling where you do agree with.

If you don't like strict Constitutional government, what's the point in having a Constitution at all? Why not just have unfettered majority rule?

The disgusting irony in the whole matter is that you don't even see the contradiction in your own views.

What you fail to realize is that strict Constitutional government is necessary otherwise you get what we have now.

And I do oppose Obamacare.
The federal government has no business in people's healthcare, retirement or their bedroom.

Click to expand...

Says who? You don't like strict Constitutional government, right? Why can't the federal government be the sole healthcare provider in the country if that's what the "majority" wants? Why?

As with all things socialism, it won't be long before the majority wants Obamacare because the minority will suffer for it and pay for it. Its very clear the majority wants Social Security and Medicare. Why shouldn't they have it and be able to demand that someone else pay for it?

BUT, mistakes have been made in the past in these areas that today commits the federal government to being responsible for those areas. You can't just quit cold turkey and leave people to fend for themselves.

Click to expand...

Again, so why have a Constitution in the first place? You do realize the nonsense you put forth could very easily be used to take away your guns?

It's not too late to prevent another mistake by repealing Obamacare now.

Click to expand...

Why should we? What if the majority wants it JB? After all, to quote you:

mistakes have been made in the past in these areas that today commits the federal government to being responsible for those areas.

Click to expand...

The federal government has screwed up healthcare. Mistakes have been made. Don't these mistakes "commit the federal government to being responsible in (this) area" ??

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more. As our membership continues to grow we look forward to reading your stories and learning from your experiences. Membership is free and we welcome all types of shooters, whether you're a novice or a pro. Come for the info, stay and make some friends..